Re: Is it correct to respond with partial representation for low capabilities media-types?

Hi Peter,

FWIK its in-band because they are part of the representation and
standardized in RFC 5988.

RFC 5988 seems to need that we change the way we used to think about
hypertext in HTTP. IMO link relations in the Link header field is
hypertext. RFC 5988 is not a media type specification but define a
generic alternative to respond with hypertext. Content negotiation is
relevant whatever the server would decide upon to use Web Linking
and/or use an entity to enclose in the body, it is only a matter of
syntax preference.

On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 9:19 PM, Rushforth, Peter
<[email protected]> wrote:
> Philippe,
>
> The hypermedia affordances in http headers are not demanded by the Accept media ranges, so how can it be in-band?
>
> Peter
> ________________________________
> From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of Philippe Rathé [[email protected]]
> Sent: July 12, 2012 12:37 PM
> To: Rest List
> Subject: Re: [rest-discuss] Is it correct to respond with partial representation for low capabilities media-types?
>
>
>
> Roy answered my question in a tweet: https://twitter.com/fielding/status/223203573146718210
>
>     "Hypertext as the engine of application state is a systemic constraint.
>      Syntax doesn't matter. What you do with the syntax matters,"
>
> I've always seen the Hypermedia in HATEOAS, in the context of HTTP as being restrained to the hypermedia document in the response body. But now I use to think that the whole response including the response's header can also possibly form an hypermedia.
>
> On Sun, Jun 24, 2012 at 12:58 PM, Philippe Rathé <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> Hi Roy, nice to see you here,
>
> In the context of HTTP, does the presence of hypermedia controls in the header of a representation which media-type isn't an hypermedia can still make HATEOAS possible?
>
> -- Philippe
>
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 3:19 AM, Roy T. Fielding <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
>
> On Jun 20, 2012, at 8:33 PM, Philippe Rathé wrote:
>
>> By the way, does somebody know if an http header is considered part of
>> the representation from a REST POV? Because it is possible to define
>> link relations in the header response without it being in the
>> "metadata body container".
>
> Yes, for those header fields that are not defined as control data
> (like Cache-control) or message metadata (like Transfer-Encoding).
>
> ....Roy
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Philippe
>
> 



-- 
Philippe


------------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rest-discuss/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    [email protected]

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    [email protected]

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/